DICE: "There are signature multiplayer elements that we want to bring into single-player."

While Battlefield 3 may have been well received for its multiplayer mayhem, its single-player campaign was a black mark on the franchise. The narrow corridors and heavily-scripted levels felt anemic of choice, as if it had been drained by a volition vampire. Instead of giving up, developer DICE wants to make things right for its next title. To wit, Battlefield 4's single-player campaign will open things up a bit, allowing for more tactical choice and variety.

Speaking to Official Playstation Magazine U.K., DICE General Manager Karl-Magnus Troedsson talked about the improvements. "There are signature multiplayer elements that we want to bring into single-player," he explains. "We want to give the player a choice. Do they want to go for the sneaky approach with a sniper rifle and a silenced pistol, or do they want to take a jeep and have the entire squad shoot at everything they see?"

It seems that the two main elements that it's borrowing from multiplayer are open environments and team work. Instead of cramped hallways, it will include sprawling fields. To better use that space, players will also be able to order AI squadmates about, to flank a position or draw fire, for example.

Battlefield 4 will launch on October 29th for PC, Playstation 3, and Xbox 360, with a release for Playstation 4 and Xbox One later this year.

All BF4 needs to do is be like Bad Company was but better, give you a huge map and an objective marker, then leave you to get on with it. How they can fit that into the script heavy baysplosions of a CoD clone, who knows.

For me it wasn't so much the gameplay that was the bad part about BF3, it was the story.

I can't remember if it was the battlefield series that ripped everything from the CoD series (you know, bad guy's steal nukes, go find bad guys and nukes, you find empty nuke case. Nuke goes off, everything goes to shit. Shoot final bad buy) or the other way around. But it was just so bland an unimaginative.

If they follow through with this multi approach to things it can improve it, but one other flaw with BF3 was that, if you play on the hardest mode, was the every enemy would target you 90% of the time, ignoring all your team mates and just focusing on getting YOU dead.

Well that's great, they're moving away from CoD and back to more battlefield-y stuff. Now if only they'd continue, with more a little out there weapons and gadgets. You know what could really help that? Hover tanks. And mechs. And maybe a gametype where you fly onto giant fortresses of doom.

Longstreet:I can't remember if it was the battlefield series that ripped everything from the CoD series.

Bf3 basically was CoD 4, there was the nuke exploding, the execution scene, the death from above bit, the bit where your squad gets wiped out on a bridge by air strike, middle eastern bad guy being played by a Russian, it's like someone who'd only read through CoD 4's TV tropes page had drawn the list of everything to be in the BF3 campaign.

I liked the BF3 campaign, it was abit weird in places especially when, without 'spoiling' it, you're forced to kill an ally because of a situation which just WOULD NOT HAPPEN. Other than that it was simple blasty fun and i enjoyed it.

I'll believe this when I play it. Battlefield 3 had some big wide-open spaces, and they were absolutely horrible because there was inadequate cover, and dozens of enemies spawning almost in the middle of the field. These days, the only way game developers can pad out their single-player campaigns is by spawning a bunch of enemy soldiers to rush in when the first few are killed. If BF4 wants to be different, it needs competent AI that can do with a couple of guys what takes a dozen nowadays.

Honestly, they need to do the way they did Battlefield 2: Modern Combat on consoles: structure the SP as the giant MP game with the ability to switch between classes & other units on the fly on the quest for completing objectives.

Daaaah Whoosh:I'll believe this when I play it. Battlefield 3 had some big wide-open spaces, and they were absolutely horrible because there was inadequate cover, and dozens of enemies spawning almost in the middle of the field. These days, the only way game developers can pad out their single-player campaigns is by spawning a bunch of enemy soldiers to rush in when the first few are killed. If BF4 wants to be different, it needs competent AI that can do with a couple of guys what takes a dozen nowadays.

Yup. This is what's wrong with regen health linear shooters. There's that one dipshit on site (don't even bother replying to the guy, might have been multiple people, don't remember though) who would say things like "but the devs can put 40 enemies in instead of 5" ignoring the fact that 40 enemies is tedious and it's pointless when 5 soldiers can do the job far better.

Modern devs really should be embarrassed that their level design and A.I. programming doesn't hold a candle to Half-Life A FUCKING TEN YEAR OLD GAME, FOR ALL IT'S PROBLEMS, STILL HAS BETTER USE OF A.I. THAN MODERN FPS GAMES.

ron1n:Needs an entire level devoted to qte rat combat in which you have to track down and kill a terrorist rodent with a nuke strapped to its back.

But seriously, why they continue to even bother with a single player campaign is beyond me. 1942 and BF2 never saw the need for one.

Then again, with the extra development time that would free up, they'd probably shove a whole lot more dust, lens flare and sun glare into the MP.

I totally agree, I'd much rather just have the maps with bots to mess around on till I feel like going into a multi-player game. The single player story is out of place in BF games and does nothing to instruct a player on how to do multi-player. I don't want a CoD clone I want a bigger better BF2 TYVM.

TheSapphireKnight:I just hope they include real time missions to teach new players how to fly Jets and Helicopters.

lol, that would be me. i still cant fly these thing in BF3, so i stick with tanks and being on foot. still think that a story would not fir in a BF game but well, i might play it for fun when i dont feel like playing the MP.

"We want to give the player a choice. Do they want to go for the sneaky approach with a sniper rifle and a silenced pistol, or do they want to take a jeep and have the entire squad shoot at everything they see?"

So basically do the thing pretty much all good shooters been doing the last 10 years? how is that multiplayer elements, please tell me.